Ambiguity is surrender: Why the Sde Teiman decision endangers Israel and Jews worldwide - opinion

Modern warfare demands warriors who can act decisively.

Israel should be listening very carefully. Because what the United States is confronting today is not uniquely American. It is a challenge Israel has been facing for years, and the recent controversy surrounding the Sde Teiman detention case has exposed just how dangerous the problem has become.

But the real issue is not why the case was closed, but how it was closed.

The decision left the central question unanswered: Were the soldiers guilty, or were they innocent?

In a courtroom, ambiguity might be tolerable; in the arena of modern information warfare, it is catastrophic.

Because unresolved accusations do not fade away: They metastasize.

Across hostile media ecosystems and activist networks, the allegation that Israeli soldiers raped or abused a detainee is now treated as established fact. Every future conflict will revive the accusation. Every anti-Israel campaign will cite it. Since the case was closed without a clear determination, the implication that Israeli soldiers committed atrocities will persist indefinitely.

That ambiguity is not simply damaging to Israel’s reputation.

It puts Jews everywhere at risk.

When Israel is portrayed as lawless, Jews become targets.

EVEN MORE troubling are the numerous unresolved questions that now surround the case.

Israeli journalist Ayala Hasson reported testimony from a Bedouin Israeli guard who stated that he overheard a conversation in Arabic suggesting that the detainee was encouraged to accuse the soldiers of rape or abuse because such accusations would improve his situation. If such testimony proves accurate, it raises deeply disturbing questions about the integrity of the investigative process.

There are other inconsistencies as well.

Much of the global outrage was fueled by surveillance footage showing soldiers forming a shielded circle around a detainee. The implication widely circulated online was that the shields were being used to conceal wrongdoing.

Yet correctional professionals know that such shield formations are standard operating procedure when dealing with violent or unruly prisoners. Israeli prison authorities, like prison systems around the world, routinely use shields to isolate dangerous detainees and prevent escalation or interference from others.

What was portrayed as suspicious behavior may simply have been standard protocol. Medical evidence also failed to conclusively establish that rape occurred. Polygraph examinations reportedly taken by the accused soldiers indicated that they were telling the truth when they denied the allegations. Meanwhile, the leak of the surveillance footage, which triggered the global scandal, remains surrounded by its own unresolved questions.

Taken together, these unresolved elements have created fertile ground for speculation, conspiracy theories, and international propaganda.

And speculation thrives in a vacuum.

Israel’s enemies understand this perfectly.

Modern warfare is fought not only on physical battlefields but across legal systems, media narratives, and psychological campaigns. Allegations of war crimes and human-rights violations have become powerful tools used to delegitimize democratic states.

This phenomenon is widely known as lawfare.

AMERICA NOW appears to recognize that excessive legal bureaucracy can weaken a nation’s ability to defend itself.

Secretary Hegseth’s review of the American military legal system reflects a growing awareness that legal institutions must adapt to the realities of modern conflict.

Israel must reach the same conclusion.

Because the consequences are not theoretical: They are personal.

I remember an experience my friend’s son shared with us from his time serving as a combat commander in the IDF. His unit was advancing toward a Palestinian village in search of Hamas operatives. As the soldiers moved forward, they encountered violent individuals preparing to throw stones and Molotov cocktails in an attempt to block the army’s advance.

At the same time, his son noticed children playing in the distance.

One of the soldiers began to raise his rifle, unaware of the children nearby.

His son immediately knocked the weapon upward and reprimanded the soldier:

“It is not worth the chance that a child could be hit. We take the risk, until we cannot.”

That is the ethos of the overwhelming majority of Israeli soldiers. Israeli parents send their children into combat with two expectations that exist in constant tension:

Do the right thing.

But come home alive.

Our enemies understand that tension, and they exploit it ruthlessly. They hide behind civilians. They manipulate legal systems. They weaponize allegations. And when Israel leaves accusations unresolved, it hands them another weapon.

This is why the Sde Teiman case cannot simply be left in ambiguity.

The Israeli public should demand clarity.

THREE OPTIONS remain.

But doing nothing is not an option.

Because ambiguity is not neutrality: It is surrender in the information war.

Israel’s soldiers must be warriors capable of defeating enemies who celebrate barbarism.

But they must also be protected by legal systems that provide clarity, credibility, and fairness.

When democracies allow ambiguity to replace truth, their enemies write the verdict.

Secretary Hegseth has recognized that America must reform its institutions to survive the realities of modern conflict.

Defense Minister Israel Katz must do the same for Israel.

The Israeli public MUST demand it, on behalf of our sons and daughters.

And World Jewish leadership should demand it as well – because this issue affects us all.